Today’s Headlines

  • Union Station Bike Hub Opens Today 9 a.m. (Biking in L.A.)
  • L.A.’s Ill-Maintained Streets Catastrophic For Cyclists (KCET)
  • LA-Más Architects Building A More Equitable Los Angeles (Curbed)
  • Purple Line Tunnel Boring Machines On the Way (The Source)
  • Carnage: Stevenson Ranch Crash Kills One (Daily News)

Get National Headlines At Streetsblog USA, State Headlines At Streetsblog CA

  • Matt

    They really need to fix the pavement across the City before trying a ton of Vision Zero projects.

  • michael macdonald

    Considering that 200+ people die in crashes annually, while deaths from road surface conditions represent less than 1% of annual roadway deaths (I’m not aware of a single death due to road surface hazards since 2014), it is imperative that safety improvements to stop the hundreds of deaths due to speeding are not held up by the city’s schedule to repair road surfaces using street repair funds.

    You can read more about the details of how LA should prioritize safety here: https://la.streetsblog.org/2017/10/26/how-councilmembers-englander-and-krekorian-could-respond-to-collision-lawsuits/

  • Matt

    Watch the video.

    Yes people have died from road pavement issues (one is mentioned in the video but there have been others). Pretty much all of these road surface related crashes result in lawsuits against the City, since they are clearly at fault for not maintaining the roads, which results in tens of millions of additional dollars lost.

    Implementing Vision Zero won’t eliminate all or even most of those deaths. The City is pretty clueless on what to do for the most part. Additional police enforcement, road diets, and other changes are often highly controversial and likely to be stopped by many of the neighborhoods involved.

  • michael macdonald

    I have watched the video. And I am well aware of liability exposure for roadway surfaces, which was the topic of the link I posted. The victim you are referring to was killed in 2014. Well over 500 Angelenos have been killed in traffic collisions since that time. Speed was a factor in nearly all of these deaths, which is why speeding needs to be addressed in order to save lives. Addressing speeding as a priority obviously does not preclude also addressing dangerous road surface conditions.

    By your statement “Implementing Vision Zero won’t eliminate all or even most of these deaths,” you clearly have little understanding of what Vision Zero is. Vision Zero sets as a goal eliminating all roadway deaths, and to best achieve it, focuses implementation first on the primary causes of roadway deaths. In Los Angeles, that is speeding drivers.

    Here are some resources to better educate yourself:
    1. https://la.streetsblog.org/2014/09/30/ladots-bold-new-strategic-vision-eliminate-l-a-traffic-deaths-by-2025/
    2. http://visionzero.lacity.org/
    3. https://visionzeronetwork.org/about/what-is-vision-zero/
    4. https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2014/11/the-swedish-approach-to-road-safety-the-accident-is-not-the-major-problem/382995/

  • Matt

    Vision Zero has a goal of eliminating roadway deaths. It is just a statement. That doesn’t mean it is realistic at all. There isn’t a viable plan around it in many cases. It is like calling a proposed transit line the “No Traffic Line”. Doesn’t mean that if the No Traffic Line is built that there will actually be no traffic.

    The other night a pedestrian was killed on Vermont Ave when a car going 70 mph struck a pedestrian in a crosswalk and then sped off without stopping. How is Vision Zero going to eliminate that death? It isn’t is the answer. Road Diet Vermont – not going to happen, traffic enforcement – some in the local community are opposed to more police, brighter crosswalk markings and maybe even flashing lights – not going to deter someone going 70 mph blowing through lights and not stopping when they hit someone.

    Meanwhile these injuries and deaths caused by cracks, potholes and uneven pavement outlined in the video are often $500 fixes and then the City spends millions settling their liability. Pure incompetence and fiscal irresponsibility. People aren’t going to support Vision Zero if the City is going to blow off maintaining the streets. I’d expect a bigger fight next time the City decides between funding street paving and Vision Zero. I support Complete Streets, but no way can the City just weasel their way out of their basic duties. People in my neighborhood are starting to get upset about the increasing lack of street sweeping, which just doesn’t happen like it did 15-20 years ago when it was every week like clockwork. Can’t ignore the basics and say you are broke and then start a new expensive initiative without angering some people.

  • michael macdonald

    If you want to end traffic deaths, you need to make decisions to prohibit speeding in locations where pedestrians, children, and other vulnerable road users are present. If you do not want to implement the adjustments (road diets, raised crossings, lane narrowing, delineators, speed cameras, etc.) that would prevent those deaths, then you are saying that you accept that our transportation system must make human sacrifices to maintain the status quo.

    What you see as unrealistic is bounded only by your own determination of what the priorities of a transportation system should be: human lives, or the ability for solo occupancy vehicles to speed within the urban core.